What does ID theory say?

quote:

---

Since we already know Atheists believe this, what is the point?

---

Since we already know that you don't know the definition of "atheist," "science," "logic," or "evidence," what is the point in your continuing to post here?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

We can safely assume I know the definition of "Atheist."

---

Given that I've seen you assign that label to people who clearly are not atheist, I'm not willing to assume any such thing. The evidence indicates otherwise.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

1. Before 1859 the special creation hypothesis was held true by science;

---

This statement illustrates quite nicely that you don't understand what "science" means. Science doesn't hold anything to be true. In science, all conclusions are tentative, subject to new evidence or a better theory to explain existing evidence.

quote:

---

therefore Creationism is a scientific explanation-interpretation of evidence.

---

Well, special creation was an important scientific theory before 1859, but subsequent discoveries and theories have shown it to be erroneous. That is why scientists in the 1860s abandoned it; it had nothing to do with atheism, it had everything to do with the evidence. The ToE explained a great deal, special creation explained none of it, and in fact the evidence was inconsistent with special creation.

quote:

---

This fact renders your blanket assertion that Creationism to not be testable to be false based on the fact that science before Darwin 1859 held Creationism to be true.

---

Here you are confusing the scientific theory of special creation from the mid 1800s with creationism as practiced today. The two actually have very little in common. In any event, they certainly aren't the same thing, and the mere fact that scientists used to put stock in one (before the evidence and a superior theory rendered it obsolete) says nothing whatsoever about whether the other has any scientific merit in the slightest.1800s special creation was testable and falsifiable. It was tested and found lacking, and it was falsified. Creationism as practiced today is neither testable nor falsifiable. It is not science. Your continued participation in this thread does nothing so much as it supports what I said in message 14 that hat you don't know the definition of "atheist," "science," "logic," or "evidence."

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

I agree.

​

However, the remnant disagree. I am a scientific descendant of the remnant.

---

While most of what you write is nonsense, I can understand most of it. This is gibberish.

quote:

---

Science was wrong to accept evolution. Pre-1859 science was and is correct. I am still writing a paper to prove these claims.

---

Yes, I've heard all about your magnum opus. I don't believe any such paper exists any more than anyone else here. In any event, it certainly adds nothing to the dialog to keep mentioning it without including actual content. But it does keep your entertainment value up, so it's not a complete waste of bandwidth.I'll give you credit for one thing though, Senor Martinez, if that is your real name, I've met very few, if any, people who are so proudly wedded to theories that all of science discarded 150 years ago.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

It was not recognized as a "hypothesis" of science per se,

---

This is not entirely accurate. In fact, most scientists proceeded on the basis of a creation hypothesis, but then attempted to conduct genuine scientific investigation for evidence in support of the hypothesis. While certainly one can criticize much of what passed for science 150 years ago, in particular if one compares it with science of today, it is a fact that many genuine scientists of the time did genuine scientific work to try to support the hypothesis of creation. It was in large part because that work was fruitless, and often pointed in different directions, that the creation hypothesis was rejected as scientifically unsupported.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat